|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 13, 2015 11:08:57 GMT -5
Does it feel like we are more than matter? That the universe is more than matter? Can we trust our feelings on this? We are an intuitive creature, having survived by developing our intuition, but at the same time it's good to recognize our own biases so they can be overcome.
My answer in this case is an emphatic NO. Materialism doesn't feel right. I resonate strongly with the creation myth of God breathing the breath of life into Adam. I feel tugged between owning an individual "soul" (for lack of a better word) and sharing a universal spirit. Biologically, the latter seems more plausible and therefore the "breath of life" is an intriguing thought.
I feel, therefore I am? I suppose my bias is a little like those who recoil from evolution because they don't want to be "descended from a monkey."
|
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Dec 13, 2015 14:56:23 GMT -5
We are more than just matter. We have intelligence and a spirit that works and is linked too the matter of our physical body.
Materialism or materialistic people are shallow and often selfish.
I am comfortable or at least my spirit is in the knowledge/accepting that I have 3 bodies. Physical soul and spirit.
If I descend from a monkey that doesnt phase me either.
Brian Cox explained how horses evolved. Now that was fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 13, 2015 17:09:44 GMT -5
No, materialism really does not feel right to me.
Materialism suggests to me a level of hubris that is unwarranted, given what is actually known.
Materialism suggests an extension of human ego beyond that justified by actual evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 13, 2015 19:54:42 GMT -5
Personally, I would say that this is an improvement over saying "I think, therefore I am".  (As an aside, to my mind, "Be still, and know that I am God" is one of the all-time great Bible verses.) I would suggest that experiencing the reality of simply "I am", without thought, without feelings, is a worthwhile endeavor. It is something we drop into effortlessly sometimes when confronted by the majesty of a night sky, the wonders of nature, or anything else that stills the incessant internal chatter that is a normal state for most of us. "I am." So finite and so infinite at the same time. (Isn't life great?) (I do have rather a lot to say about materialism - maybe too much. If I can condense/capture my thoughts so that they are at all meaningful, I'll post again if I have time.) |
|
|
|
Post by Guesst on Dec 13, 2015 20:12:13 GMT -5
Imo around the time that materialism raised its
Ugly head, we immediately needed a realm of
Spirituality to ward off the vanity of allowing
This materialism to consume our spiritual
Soul and we become in bondage to those
material things that will only last till we die.
Ever since we have had to battle the human urge
to embrace the fleeting pleasures of materialism
at the cost of forgetting the real and eternal
Godliness that we can love and enjoy for
eternity. In my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 13, 2015 20:20:03 GMT -5
I feel, therefore I am? I suppose my bias is a little like those who recoil from evolution because they don't want to be "descended from a monkey." Even a young ape can enjoy a good joke, when they think about it. youtu.be/OLrYzY3jVPY |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 14, 2015 13:45:23 GMT -5
No, materialism really does not feel right to me. Materialism suggests to me a level of hubris that is unwarranted, given what is actually known. Materialism suggests an extension of human ego beyond that justified by actual evidence. Materialism does not feel right to me either. (I agree with the other two points you make as well.) I like that they are increasingly using the term “Physicalism” to distinguish “Materialism” from its non-philosophical usage. phys•i•cal•ism ˈfizəkəlˌizəm/ noun Philosophy noun: physicalism 1. the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world. ma•te•ri•al•ism məˈtirēəˌlizəm/ noun noun: materialism 1. a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. 2. Philosophy the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. I love that the definitions that pop up on a Google search (above) refer to “physicalism” and the philosophical usage of “materialism” as a “doctrine”. I really like Lothar Shafer and consider his book “Infinite Potential: What Quantum Physics Reveals About How We Should Live” well worth reading. |
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 14, 2015 14:11:08 GMT -5
("Be still, and know that I am God" is one of the all-time great Bible verses.) I would suggest that experiencing the reality of simply "I am", without thought, without feelings, is a worthwhile endeavor. "I am." So finite and so infinite at the same time. I recently took a History of Science course on-line. The primary thrust of the lectures was how reality has been redefined by advances in modern science and technology. In each of the sciences discussed (physical sciences. biological sciences and social sciences) a pattern is noted in the trajectory of development of all three of these sciences. What arrested my attention was the fact that the pattern followed, seems to be similar in many respects to the path followed by individuals in search of “God”. Analysis of the history of each of the sciences reveals that each begins with an atomistic (collection of discrete objects) notion of reality. This would correspond with SharonArnold’s “finite I am” where each individual recognizes their own consciousness and freedom of action. In each science, however, the atomistic picture of reality failed to explain all observed phenomena and the science was expanded to consider not only discrete objects but also the interactions between objects (e.g. Newton’s theory of gravitation). This finds a parallel in human affairs where an individual seeks fellowship with others and is influenced by these interactions. Again, the view of reality as a collection of interacting objects did not fully encompass reality. Ultimately the vision of reality as a collection of interacting distinct objects has been modified by each of the sciences to embrace a broader generalization. Each science now views reality as a unified whole where each individual entity is embedded in a single, coherent larger existence (unified field theory, etc). To me, this larger existence is similar in many respects to SharonArnold’s “infinite I am”. I am tempted and daring enough to wonder, if perhaps, the pattern has one more aspect, an ultimate unity rooted in a single creation. I view this larger existence as the point where I might “slip the surly bonds” of my ignorance, “put out my hand and touch the face of God” (adapted from John Gillespie Magee Jr. and Peggy Noonan). |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2015 14:20:43 GMT -5
I really like Lothar Shafer and consider his book “Infinite Potential: What Quantum Physics Reveals About How We Should Live” well worth reading. Individuals sharing views with Deepak Chopra raises red flags. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2015 14:27:12 GMT -5
No, materialism really does not feel right to me. Does not feel right or places limits on the way you would like things to be? |
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 14, 2015 14:58:28 GMT -5
No, materialism really does not feel right to me. Does not feel right or places limits on the way you would like things to be? Does not feel right, lacks evidence and is intellectually jejune. |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 14, 2015 16:41:39 GMT -5
I really like Lothar Shafer and consider his book “Infinite Potential: What Quantum Physics Reveals About How We Should Live” well worth reading. Individuals sharing views with Deepak Chopra raises red flags. Deepak Chopra is pretty ubiquitous these days. You would be pretty hard-pressed to find a scientist of any prominence, particularly one who pauses to ask the question of “What does this all mean?” (and has the capacity to integrate it), who is not collaborating/dialoging/having a twitter war with Deepak. Lothar Shafer had a decades long distinguished career as a Physical Chemist and wrote “In Search of Divine Reality: Science as a Source of Inspiration” many years before he ever encountered Deepak. In your view, would sharing some common ground with someone like Deepak mean that what you say is not worth reading or worth trying to understand? If so, you marginalize individuals who have made some pretty significant contributions to our understanding of life on this planet – both past and present. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 14, 2015 20:01:54 GMT -5
I'm happy for the scientific discovery of free will, that we are not living in a clockwork universe. Yet I think for
mystics to jump on board the quantum world as evidence of their gods is pure quackery. Hey, that's just my opinion. And
yet, I still feel like materialism (presumably through evolution) is an unsatisfactory explanation for life, consciousness, the morals we develop, and more. The blending of science and spiritualism is elusive, made doubly so by how hard it is anymore for the layman to understand science at its edges.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 15, 2015 1:19:33 GMT -5
Individuals sharing views with Deepak Chopra raises red flags. Deepak Chopra is pretty ubiquitous these days. You would be pretty hard-pressed to find a scientist of any prominence, particularly one who pauses to ask the question of “What does this all mean?” (and has the capacity to integrate it), who is not collaborating/dialoging/having a twitter war with Deepak. The common cold is also pretty ubiquitous these days. Rather than a long list of references of scientists from a variety of fields speaking out against Chopra I would suggest reading the entry in wikipedia. There are links provided to back up what is written there. Do you have the names of a couple of prominent scientists who are collaborating with Chopra? Sometimes people get off track. Linus Pauling, an outstanding scientist in multiple fields, won a Nobel prize two times and then went way off track. It does not detract from the work that he did in quantum chemistry but in later life he was in the running for the quack of the decade. In my view if you believe and share the views that Chopra promotes regarding anything having to do with quantum biology you are probably not presenting anything that has a firm foundation. For example, Chopra's views that a change in quantum state, and a jump to a different consciousness kills cancer and that is the cause of the spontaneous remission of cancer. Much of what Chopra has promoted along these lines was examined in After the Science Wars: Science and the Study of Science (Ashman and Barringer). But then, not everyone can be so far off base as to get the distinguished Ig Nobel Prize in physics! Considering Chopra, can you name some individuals who have worked with and supported Chopra's theories/healing techniques/ideas about quantum physics and made significant contributions to our understanding of life? |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 15, 2015 11:35:33 GMT -5
Deepak Chopra is pretty ubiquitous these days. You would be pretty hard-pressed to find a scientist of any prominence, particularly one who pauses to ask the question of “What does this all mean?” (and has the capacity to integrate it), who is not collaborating/dialoging/having a twitter war with Deepak. The common cold is also pretty ubiquitous these days. Rather than a long list of references of scientists from a variety of fields speaking out against Chopra I would suggest reading the entry in wikipedia. There are links provided to back up what is written there. Do you have the names of a couple of prominent scientists who are collaborating with Chopra? Sometimes people get off track. Linus Pauling, an outstanding scientist in multiple fields, won a Nobel prize two times and then went way off track. It does not detract from the work that he did in quantum chemistry but in later life he was in the running for the quack of the decade. In my view if you believe and share the views that Chopra promotes regarding anything having to do with quantum biology you are probably not presenting anything that has a firm foundation. For example, Chopra's views that a change in quantum state, and a jump to a different consciousness kills cancer and that is the cause of the spontaneous remission of cancer. Much of what Chopra has promoted along these lines was examined in After the Science Wars: Science and the Study of Science (Ashman and Barringer). But then, not everyone can be so far off base as to get the distinguished Ig Nobel Prize in physics! Considering Chopra, can you name some individuals who have worked with and supported Chopra's theories/healing techniques/ideas about quantum physics and made significant contributions to our understanding of life? I am neither promoting or defending Deepak Chopra. IMO, he is a very intelligent man, with a huge ego, which sometimes gets him in trouble. I don't follow that many people on twitter. Deepak is one of them. I also follow two of his greatest critics. I do not follow (twitter or otherwise) only people I agree with - I follow people who I consider have something worthwhile to say or who represent a phenomenon that is worth watching. (I am also currently following Donald Trump. Take your pick from the two aforementioned reasons.) I was simply pointing out to you that if you use interaction with Deepak as a filter to disregard anything someone has to say, you are excluding quite a few thought leaders these days. As far as scientists who have/are collaborating/dialoging with Deepak, I am sure your Google skills are up to the task. He has written books with a few. But the numbers where he has simply written forwards to their books or facilitated dialog is truly astonishing. As far as wiki is concerned, if the subject matter or the person is controversial, I think most people have learned to keep the process whereby wiki articles are generated in mind as they read the entries. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 15, 2015 12:47:34 GMT -5
I am neither promoting or defending Deepak Chopra. IMO, he is a very intelligent man, with a huge ego, which sometimes gets him in trouble. What I really wanted to point out that from a quantum physics standpoint he is a quack. He is a skilled businessman. All accounts point to him being a skilled endocrinologist. You have me on this one/ I don't follow anyone on twitter - I generally wait for them to publish before I look at their work. And I was simply asking for a couple of names of the thought leaders who agree with Chopra. It is true that I do have fair search skills and access to the majority of published papers. Of course, I did a quick search to find scientists who have worked with and supported Chopra's theories/healing techniques/ideas about quantum physics and made significant contributions to our understanding of life. The reason why I was asking was because I was unable to find these individuals. Of course. But if the information regarding Chopra was incorrect I am certain that he would be diligent in getting in corrected. After all, he did unsuccessfully sue the medical journals that pointed out that his claims were unsupported and, in the words of some, quackery. And of course, if you do find fault with the articles written in wikipedia there are almost always a long list of references to check. |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 15, 2015 15:57:09 GMT -5
I was simply pointing out to you that if you use interaction with Deepak as a filter to disregard anything someone has to say, you are excluding quite a few thought leaders these days. And I was simply asking for a couple of names of the thought leaders who agree with Chopra. with him? About what, precisely?  (As I said earlier, he is ubiquitous.) This is the realm of ideas. This is NOT the realm of junior high cliques, where you say “You are one of us, therefore we will pack together and defend you.” Or vice versa. This is the realm where some of your responses might be: “What you just said is word salad to me. I am going to go and think about other things that are beckoning my time and attention.” “This is a bad idea. From my knowledge and experience, this (fill-in-the blank) is why.” “My mind is following where (I think) yours is going. I will add it to my mind space, and after a period of reflection (5 minutes, or a decade or two), I will decide if it is consistent with my own knowledge and experience.” “Yes! What (I think) you just said is consistent with what I have been thinking/saying for years / am beginning to understand.” Etc… |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 15, 2015 18:42:56 GMT -5
I wish I had a mind space. Maybe I'll try Walmart.
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 15, 2015 20:43:39 GMT -5
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 15, 2015 21:07:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 16, 2015 21:38:11 GMT -5
And I was simply asking for a couple of names of the thought leaders who agree with Chopra. with him? About what, precisely???? (As I said earlier, he is ubiquitous.) He has expanded his persona and done very well for himself. Much better when he was an endocrinologist and actually helping people Yes it is. And the ideas based on nothing lead to, for example, people in local government stopping the installation of a solar panel system because they believe the panels will suck up all the sun's energy. And, it follows, of course, that photosynthesis will cease in plants as a result. This is the realm of ideas. Ideas that hurt people. When the 'word salad' is taking money from people and offering them false hope, to their detriment, it is not something that you just turn and walk away from. No more that you turn and walk away from hate speech. An excellent response. I have a feeling you like the fuzzy realm of ideas that have no basis in reality. Certainly, I have sat with my grandchildren and made shapes out of clouds. It was fun. But at no time did I give the formations of the clouds to be anything more than random chance. Pretending they were omens sent from a paranormal source would have been wrong. And this is not the lesson children should be taught. It would be equivalent to claiming you could communicate with the dead and then deceive people into giving you their money. Once you start promoting claims based on nothing there is danger. When you claim that quantum changes in conscientious change the body so cancer is destroyed, and take money from the people who can least afford it, with absolutely no hope of a cure it should be considered a criminal act. If this were the case I would agree. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 16, 2015 21:44:39 GMT -5
My answer in this case is an emphatic NO. Materialism doesn't feel right. I resonate strongly with the creation myth of God breathing the breath of life into Adam. I feel tugged between owning an individual "soul" (for lack of a better word) and sharing a universal spirit. Biologically, the latter seems more plausible and therefore the "breath of life" is an intriguing thought. How does the breath of life work for those simple one cell organisms? Because they do not have an accurate grasp of evolution? |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 17, 2015 15:52:08 GMT -5
“My mind is following where (I think) yours is going. I will add it to my mind space, and after a period of reflection (5 minutes, or a decade or two), I will decide if it is consistent with my own knowledge and experience.” I have a feeling you like the fuzzy realm of ideas that have no basis in reality. Well, at least your version of reality! I am willing to question exactly what is "real". I am not afraid to follow the discourse of what "fundamental reality" might actually be, no matter how weird or wacky it might get. Empirical evidence and rational thinking are tools in my toolbox, they do not dictate my entire world view. Introspection, another tool in my toolbox, has long informed my life and made it meaningful. I am willing to borrow from both science and wisdom traditions in pondering the "Who am I?" "Where did I come from?" "Where am I going?" "What shall I do while I am here?" kind of questions. Though I have plenty of beliefs and opinions and prejudices of my own, I am willing to consider other points of view without having to make them "right" or "wrong". The "God" terminology has meaning for me and not just as a caricatured concept of a "paranormal being" that I feel compelled to endlessly argue against. As does the "soul" terminology. I feel deeply attuned to the essence of who I am, without having to conceptualize it - though occasionally it's fun to try. I've always resonated with a classical definition of skepticism, and question what frequently passes for skepticism these days. In my view, true skepticism means being skeptical of one's own position as well (no matter how materialistic and reductionist it might be and no matter how much you are convinced that it is right). If I was nominating a "true skeptic" on this board, I would nominate placid-void. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2015 20:36:47 GMT -5
I have a feeling you like the fuzzy realm of ideas that have no basis in reality. Well, at least your version of reality! :D I am willing to question exactly what is "real". I am not afraid to follow the discourse of what "fundamental reality" might actually be, no matter how weird or wacky it might get. Perhaps you have more free time than I do and are willing to hunt the snipe. this is very clear. Of course, some of us have resolved these questions to our satisfaction. This is true for most people but if other points of view are presented are you saying that you accept them "right" or "wrong". As an atheist there is a need to fit the concept of the paranormal being you are discussing to the concept held the theist. The atheist has no concept of god.This is what I meant by your enjoyment of fuzzy ideas without logical/material support. For some people this is of little interest. I have no idea of what you consider classical skepticism. I have always applied the following general definition: Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.No argument there. Beliefs, like theories, are always re-evaluated against any newly presented data. Seems like a fair choice. |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 22, 2015 20:06:06 GMT -5
Sorry, life intervened in the form of a broken arm. I am willing to borrow from both science and wisdom traditions in pondering the "Who am I?" "Where did I come from?" "Where am I going?" "What shall I do while I am here?" kind of questions. Of course, some of us have resolved these questions to our satisfaction. You may have answered these questions to your satisfaction – good for you. I have no problem with that. But I would like to point out that any answers you might have to any one of these questions is as faith-based as anyone else’s answers. Though I have plenty of beliefs and opinions and prejudices of my own, I am willing to consider other points of view without having to make them "right" or "wrong". This is true for most people but if other points of view are presented are you saying that you accept them "right" or "wrong". No, read what I said again. It has nothing to do with acceptance. I just do not have to label other points of view as “right” or “wrong”. I feel deeply attuned to the essence of who I am, without having to conceptualize it - though occasionally it's fun to try. This is what I meant by your enjoyment of fuzzy ideas without logical/material support. For some people this is of little interest. Do you suppose I care that it is of little interest to “some” people? I am a profoundly selfish person, I post here for me. I expect other people to skip what is of little interest to them here, even as I do. I've always resonated with a classical definition of skepticism, and question what frequently passes for skepticism these days. I have no idea of what you consider classical skepticism. I have always applied the following general definition: Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. No, any mention of empirical/unempirical represents a hijacking of true skepticism. True skepticism questions everything, including the limitations of the “empirical evidence” that is simply a product of human perceptual experience. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 22, 2015 23:08:41 GMT -5
Sorry, life intervened in the form of a broken arm. Of course, some of us have resolved these questions to our satisfaction. You may have answered these questions to your satisfaction – good for you. I have no problem with that. But I would like to point out that any answers you might have to any one of these questions is as faith-based as anyone else’s answers. This is true for most people but if other points of view are presented are you saying that you accept them "right" or "wrong". No, read what I said again. It has nothing to do with acceptance. I just do not have to label other points of view as “right” or “wrong”. This is what I meant by your enjoyment of fuzzy ideas without logical/material support. For some people this is of little interest. Do you suppose I care that it is of little interest to “some” people? I am a profoundly selfish person, I post here for me. I expect other people to skip what is of little interest to them here, even as I do. I have no idea of what you consider classical skepticism. I have always applied the following general definition: Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. No, any mention of empirical/unempirical represents a hijacking of true skepticism. True skepticism questions everything, including the limitations of the “empirical evidence” that is simply a product of human perceptual experience.
His article asks the question as to whether (Chopra) "passes the test of a true scientist: professional integrity?"
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 23, 2015 22:10:49 GMT -5
Sorry, life intervened in the form of a broken arm. Of course, some of us have resolved these questions to our satisfaction. You may have answered these questions to your satisfaction – good for you. I have no problem with that. But I would like to point out that any answers you might have to any one of these questions is as faith-based as anyone else’s answers. And how would you support that claim? "Who am I?" - This requires no faith. I am the next generation of a species, the result of the combination of the DNA of my parents. "Where did I come from?" - like every other member of the species, the result of the combination of the DNA of my parents. "Where am I going?" - Like every known life form, I will cease to function at some point and my constituents will return to the environment. "What shall I do while I am here?" - This is an individual question. I try live a life that does not harm others. There is a lot more but faith is not involved. Faith becomes an issue when people speculate on what might be rather than what is known. Are you sure by not opposing you are not tacitly accepting? I don't think you do nor should care. But making the statement that it takes faith to answer the question of "Who am I?" indicates that you think others also consider ideas without logical or material support. Perhaps you could provide a definition of classical skepticism so everyone is on the same page. Is it your arm that is no longer intact? |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 24, 2015 12:35:43 GMT -5
You may have answered these questions to your satisfaction – good for you. I have no problem with that. But I would like to point out that any answers you might have to any one of these questions is as faith-based as anyone else’s answers. And how would you support that claim? "Who am I?" - This requires no faith. I am the next generation of a species, the result of the combination of the DNA of my parents. "Where did I come from?" - like every other member of the species, the result of the combination of the DNA of my parents. "Where am I going?" - Like every known life form, I will cease to function at some point and my constituents will return to the environment. "What shall I do while I am here?" - This is an individual question. I try live a life that does not harm others. There is a lot more but faith is not involved. Faith becomes an issue when people speculate on what might be rather than what is known. All of your answers are predicated on the assumption that "you" are just your physical body – a bag of skin, containing some bones and some organs in community with a bunch of microorganisms that outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. Nothing more. That may be. But I don’t know how you would prove that. Even if you want to argue it based on “lack of evidence”, embedded in this are two articles of faith: 1. that empirical evidence comprises some sort of overarching objective reality, rather than simply being a product of human perceptual experience. 2. that rational thought is the only way of making sense of our existence here. (Yes, my arm.) |
|
(As I said earlier, he is ubiquitous.)